"Is This English"

During the reading of this book, I could not help but be reminded of when we went to the website showing the high school graduation rates per school. If I remember correctly, Johnston had a 36% graduation rate. I find it ironic that the "remedy" for Johnston's high attrition rate is more structured schooling practices which continue to produce the same results. High stakes testing and the standards movement continue to detach the learner from the learning. Isn't this what we have been reading this entire semester?

Taking an inquiry stance in the classroom provides students the opportunity to become active seekers of knowledge. I liked Fecho's extension of Rosenblatt's transactional theory from reading books to "reading" people. We transact with one another, shaping and being shaped by the experience. In classrooms where teachers are willing to take risks and ask challenging questions where no absolute answer exists students become meaning makers and identity shapers.

Teaching in the Contact Zone

While reading this book, I couldn't help but wish I had been in Gaughan's class when I was in 9th grade. I mean, Mrs. Thomas was nice and everything, but for some reason I feel a bit cheated.

Gaughan's classroom promotes the kind of democratic ways of being I want to nurture in my classroom. Teachers who are committed to the well-being of all students must begin to reflect and rethink how and why they teach. Gaughan's book highlights the need for teachers to be aware of the multiple voices in the classroom. By envisioning the classroom as the intersection of multiple ideologies, we begin to become aware that teaching and learning are never neutral. This awareness allows us to engage in conversations that surface underlying assumptions. However, oftentimes, we are pushed by outside forces to focus on the content instead of the person, but Gaughan's book illustrates how powerful engaging students in the academic conversation can be. Gaughan doesn't shy away from the difficult topics and appears to enjoy teaching within "the contact zone." Gaughan's way of teaching is messy and unpredictable, and I fear that for many teachers it is by far easier to hide behind the curriculum then to connect with students in the ways Gaughan suggests.

More "Reconceptualizing. . ."

I just want to say first that I have a huge man-crush on Gee. TMI, perhaps, but I can't help it. My first read in grad school was Gee's Social Linguistics and Literacies, and I've been hooked ever since. Gee's work is relevant and important to schooling reform because he focuses on the "darker aspects" of our capitalist reality and how schooling tends to contribute to social and cultural reproduction. His notion of "Shape-Shifting Portfolio People" informs my practice as I attempt to apprentice my students into the academic discourse (Gee, would that be a "D" or a "d"?). If Gee is correct in his thinking that modern reality requires young people to engage in self-fashioning practices that recreate their identities, students should be provided ample opportunities to engage in such practices. Unfortunately, however, students of privilege tend to participate in self-fashioning acts to gain social capital that will be used for future successes; whereas, working-class students "display themselves as immersed in a world of action and feeling untied to vaunted futures of achievement, transformation, and status" (p. 182). In addition, what I found most surprising was that the upper-middle-class schools in the study did not engage students in social critique and the working-class schools did not engage students in conversations about living in a ever-changing, technological society.

Gee suggests that exposing students to digital literacies may bridge the "divide" between the haves and the have-nots, but alas, in the Wilder and Dressman chapter they show that often teachers and students fail to reap the transformative benefits of technology. The authors argue that students need more explicit instruction in using technology, and the students need to participate in authentic technological tasks.

Reflections on "Reconceptualizing. . ."

"In short, an education within this framework encompasses much more than learning academic subjects; education is the valuing of students' humanity despite any beliefs to the contrary that may exist in society" (p. 111).

"Valuing of students' humanity" seems to be a common thread throughout our readings this week. In particular, this notion of "as if" educational communities struck a chord with me. Having our students who have been marginalized by current schooling practices and ideologies revise and refashion their identity in ways that may empower and engage them truly returns the focus of education back to the students. We must make explicit the common instructional practices which ignore certain student voices and reject certain students by encouraging our students to imagine a different world.

Why haven't I read this book sooner?

Reading When Kids Can't Read has been both engaging and valuable. I found the book to be well-organized, theoretically grounded, and immediately applicable. I will be able to bring many of these strategies into my classroom as soon as tomorrow. I just wish I would have discovered this book sooner.

Beers' argues throughout the book that reading is a process and that teachers cannot simply assume that all students know how to do the complex work that critical reading requires. Much too often, we tend to think that if students have made it to middle school they should "know" how to read. For many of my students, however, reading is not a "lived-experience", and this is where the problem lies. I have a degree in English not in education. I was never taught how to help students improve their reading. My undergraduate coursework focused mainly on reading literature not on ways to help students use literacy as a tool for thinking, learning, and accomplishing tasks.

I don't know how much has changed since I was an undergrad preparing to teach secondary English. I hope there has been a shift in they way pre-service teachers are prepared to work with their students. Hopefully, these new, bright young educators realize that not all students know how to read critically, and they have been given the tools to help their struggling readers succeed. I hope that instead of focusing on the end product they will help their students recognize the complex processes which lead to successful reading. I hope they have already been exposed to the work of Beers, of Rosenblatt, of Vygotsky, of Mercer, of Meyers, of Applebee, of (I could go on). I've waited twelve years; I hope they don't have to wait as long.

Push

My reading has for the past year been grad school heavy. I'm thankful to get the opportunity to read a novel for a change. I entered this reading experience from several perspectives. I read as a lover of literature, a teacher, a grad student, a writer, a middle class white male. I found it interesting how each of my "identities" informed my reading experience, and while I read, I noted my different emotional responses as I experienced the text. This novel hit me in the viscera. At times I was absolutely repulsed by what I read. While other times, my eyes teared. How different this story would be if told from the third person.

How YOU do'in?

"The question arises: to what extent do environmental pressures-- home, school, societal-- lead the child to focus attention on the efferent handling of language and to push the richly fused cognitive-affective matrix to the fringes of consciousness?" (40).

I was drawn to this question while reading Rosenblatt. Current school culture dictates efferent thinking. Weekly (or daily) bundling (read: bungling) of curriculum, teaching to the test, rubrics, multiple choice tests, etc all contribute to developing a habit of mind which encourages students to detach personally from the learning experience. I can not help but be reminded of Applebee's notion of knowledge out of context and his discussion on the listing of curriculum. When we privilege quality over quality, students have a tendency to reject schooling. I understand why the schooling culture has developed this way, but I don't have to like it, and I will do my part to counter this myopic system by returning the "heart" to my classroom.

I spent the entire morning on Saturday bundling the 6th grade Language Arts TEKS into weekly plans. The district now wants us to make a specific TEKS our weekly focus. On Mondays, they want us to collaborate as a 6th grade Language Arts team. By Friday, we must turn in a plan which outlines how we will teach and assess the specific weekly TEKS. We have been told that they want to be able to walk into our rooms and see the same instruction occurring. Yeah right!

I'm not done thinking this out, but alas I must go and plan with my team; it's Monday. [Insert pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth here]

A Little Venting Can't Hurt

"The personal nature of the learning process places a decided responsibility on the teacher" (p. 235)

Do you remember your worst class as a student? After reading Rosenblatt, I could not help but be reminded of mine. Even though I have a BA in English from A&M, hands down, the worst class in the history of my academic life (maybe in the history of all academia) was my British Literature Survey course. Just thinking about it makes my skin prickle a bit as I reluctantly recall the vision of Dr. Johnson standing behind his podium as he methodically trudged through the muck and mire of the Romantic Poets with the emotional intensity of a 2X4. In terms of personality, the man would make Al Gore look like RuPaul. Concrete image: Think Ben Stien in Ferris Buller 10X. Okay, so you get the picture. Bad. . .very, very bad. During his lectures, he would disseminate HIS understanding of the literature in perfect monotone into a microphone that he wore around his neck. Perhaps I'm being too harsh because the class had over eighty students. But good grief, 78 of them were snoozing within five minutes. Suffer from insomnia? We have found the cure. We were never engaged in any discussion, nor were we given the opportunity to express our opinions. We were there to be talked to and to cover the content. The assessments were matching-quizzes which tested our ability to recall factual information in order to prove that we had read the assigned readings. I never truly engaged with the readings like Rosenblatt so eloquently discusses in her book. I merely attempted to prove to the professor that I had read the material and was prepared to perform well on the quiz.

I don't know how Dr. Johnson would have been able to reconcile these issues, however. I'm sure he was a nice man, but perhaps I am indeed being to harsh. How does one hold a organic, authentic discussion of literature with 80+ students? On second thought, I'm not going to let him off the hook so easily. I admit that he was operating from a different pedagogical tradition, but he let us down. If I am able to provide a space for my middle school students to engage in authentic and meaningful transactional experiences with texts, Dr. Johnson should have been able to foster this type of environment in a college classroom. Our responsibility as educators is not to hide behind podiums and preconceived notions of truth but to be "real" with our students and engage them in relevant, meaningful experiences.

Okay, I've gotten off my soapbox, and I'm counting to ten while taking deep breathes.

A Bite of Applebee

"The paradox of knowledge-in-action is that in order to learn something new, one must do what one doesn't know how to do. The way out of this paradox is to realize that learning is a social process: We can learn to do new things by doing them with others" (p. 108).

It seems so obvious doesn't: working with others to learn new things? I think we understand this, but how often does collaboration and cooperation for thinking and learning actually occur in our classrooms? Why? First, it seems to me that much of the systems in place in school are to control thought and behavior. Learning to work in groups effectively requires time and energy. I feel many teachers fear that students will not work well together. Thought and behavior must also be controlled because teachers feel they must cover the cannon, the lists, the TEKS, and/or the TAKS objectives. Teachers have little time to get to everything and also engage in authentic conversations for the purpose of inquiry and discovery. The type of knowledge-in-action instruction Applebee purposes is messy. It doesn't necessarily fit into a nice neat package. Administers like order; the state likes to measure "things". Thus, we find ourselves teaching in the front of the room; students passively "learning" while sitting in their rows.

This year my focus is to encourage my students to work together to discover and learn. I have repositioned myself as a facilitator rather then the expert, and I'm actively instructing my students on how to participate in groups effectively. I strive to have a classroom which is a true apprenticeship into the the academic discourse, but it takes time because my students are not familiar with this way to "do" school, but I teach middle school. . .I have the patience of Job.

Being Smart

This is my 12th start of a school year. I enjoy this time when the new school year awaits like the potential of a blank page (or blog space). Experience has taught me well. I know that if I jump into the "meat" of the curriculum too soon my students will not be as successful. No, these first three weeks have not been about TAKS tests or grades. These first weeks have been about establishing a framework for how we will "be" in this space. What we have learned is essential to the thinking and learning my students and I will do for the rest of the year. Yes, I am starting to feel that gentle tug of anxiety because I have yet to take a "real" grade, but you know, I've decided this year, I'm going to trust the process. I teach children not content. I believe my job is to apprentice my students into the academic discourse, and for many of my students my job is to help bridge the gap between two different worlds.

I have thought quite a bit recently about translation/critical literacy, and my practice is informed by this way of thinking. This year I want to guide my students to learn to think and work together to accomplish tasks. I have been fascinated with this notion of writing as a tool for thinking, learning and getting things done. To help my students understand this way of thinking, last week, I brought in a tool box. For warm-up I displayed the open box on my overhead cart. On the broad, I wrote, "What do you notice?". I then gave each table a different tool and asked them to think together while jotting down several "noticings." After the discussion of the tools: their uses, their surface features, we discussed how writing was also a tool.

The following day, on the board I wrote "Think about this in your writer's notebook: What does 'being smart' mean? How are you smart?". I let the students guide the discussion and only intervened when "talk rules" were being broken. I wish I had videotaped or audiotaped the discussions. I was very pleased with the discussions in both my Pre-AP class and my on-level class about this topic. My students had many definitions of smart. Some students believed that being smart was being quiet, listening to the teacher, and getting their work done while others took the stance that "smart" was making good choices. A few students said that smart came for experience while others challenged this definition thinking that people were born smart. I also got a few other responses that I found interesting. One student said, "I think being smart means a lot of things. It doesn't just mean school smart either; there's other types of smart." Another student said, "I don't think there is a smart or dumb; there's just different ways to look at things." We finally talked about how one way of thinking about being smart is knowing how to use tools in certain ways. We also talked about how we all know how to do things that others might not do. I am certain my students are beginning to think about writing differently after our discussion. I think helping my students look at the practice of writing as a way to get a task done will help to demystify writing and ground my students thinking.

This notion of tool use and intelligence will be the foundation for our inquiry together. I don't believe these revelations would have been possible in a classroom operating from a decoding/analytic literacy paradigm. Now, our district is pushing grade level curriculum alignment for all subject areas. I'm resistant. If we are pushed or pulled (more like yanked) by district policy to align language arts instruction to a specific plan-- that I have to teach a specific TEK on a specific day, I don't think I can continue to stay in this profession. Math is already organized in this way, and we have yet to see improvement. We need to stop being so concerned about covering everything and trust the process. Quality over Quantity, Please!

Myers

Okay. . .so I procrastinated. What else is new? Just finished Myers book while at the same time trying to keep up with today's football games and my fantasy football teams. I'm beginning to think this graduate school thing is really going to conflict with my football addiction. Priorities. Okay, so what does this have to do with Myers? Besides me attempting to communicate in the "expressive mode" by writing in "conversational prose"? Absolutely nothing!!!! (Notice four exclamation points for effect).

I think what most influenced me in Changing Our Minds was the tension between decoding/analytical literacy and translation/critical literacy. I teach, so I live in this tension daily. Although I am committed to creating a learning environment informed by the translational/critical literacy framework, I work with teachers who continue to operate under the decoding/analytical literacy paradigm. In addition, our district continues to insist that teachers teach math from the decoding/analytical literacy perspective. I have so much more to say, but. . . yawn. I promise to expound on my thinking soon.

My TV is Freakin' Awesome! (and other ramblings)

Do you remember when TVs had knobs? I don't know about you, but when I was a kid I thought the only reason I was here was to serve as channel switcher for my father. We used to have an old Zenith. . .the knob had broken off, so my father in his infinite wisdom attached a pair of vise grips on the exposed turn screw. Problem solved. We thought nothing of it. Oh, have things changed.

I just bought a 50" HDTV. Needless to say, it's a far cry from the old boxes I have previously owned. Okay. Okay. What does this have to do with Literacy and Orality class and our readings? Besides it being a major distraction from my classwork this week? (Have you seen Planet Earth in HD?) The evolution of television technology is one of the many remarkable transformations we have witnessed in this decade. Take the cell phone for instance. Have you watched any movies from the late 80's early 90's. The phones are absolutely gargantuan. In June, the I-Phone hits stores. I'm not sure it will be as popular as the I-Pod, but this device is simply amazing as well as ingeniously multimodal (there's a class connection somewhere). I am in awe of these new technologies and how these technologies shape our lives.

Siegel's article last week and the New London Group's article for this week highlight how technology has influenced our communities and created a need for changes in how we educate our young people. Siegel contends that although current governmental educational ideology has a "narrow and regressive vision of literacy learning", schools must recognize the nature of young people's lives. School literacy (textual focused) is only one of many ways young people are engaged with semiotic systems. Outside of school, young people are bombarded with multiple messages through various mediums. Young people may be able to negotiate through this rich environment, but do they have the resources to view these multiple messages critically? How do these messages influence our young people? Because technology has made multiple forms of literacy available to our young people, how do our students use various semiotic systems to communicate?

The New London Group challenges current school ideology which progresses the "formalised, monolingual, monocultural" standard of the dominant group. Because the globalization via technology of our society has made ideas easily accessible to the masses, the needs of our children are rapidly changing. The authors contend that technology has influenced changes in working lives, public lives, and personal lives, and these changes necessitate new forms of pedagogy. One major point the authors progress is the notion that schools were at times sites of cultural subtraction and assimilation into the dominate group ideology. Now, because "local diversity and global connectedness" has seemingly fragmented the notions of standards, the authors contend that there is a need for "civic pluralism" instead.

This week's themes

Catherine Adams' critique of PowerPoint made me have to stop and think. I always believed this presentation tool to be neutral. An important point she makes is that once a tool is accepted into mainstream consciousness "we invite it to enhance or more dramatically, transform what we do and how we perceive the world" (390). This is a very powerful contention. Although I was skeptical in the beginning, after reading the article, I understand her point of view. Her argument that PowerPoint "invites" teachers to present information in one of two ways: blank or template. Many teachers new to the program choose to use the default settings. This being the case, teachers present information in a straightforward, linear way. Teachers must choose what is important, what should be bulleted, and what should be left out. What does it really matter though? Why shouldn't teachers use PowerPoint? What harm can it do? I believe Adam's main point is that PowerPoint confines teachers to a particular pattern of delivery. The classroom is not antiseptic, structured environment (or it shouldn't be). Learning is often times messy.

PowerPoint's design lends itself to a straightforward simplicity which does not promote improvisation and spontenity. In my classroom, I have a plan, but I live within the moment and let my students guide the direction of the lesson. In my classroom, sometimes I think I am MacGyver using whatever I have to solve the problem. When I use PowerPoint, instead of pouring forth information, I use the tool to engage my students in discussion. Adams makes a wonderful point distiguishing between two pedagogical ideologies: teaching as dialogue and teaching as delivery. This is the most damaging criticism of this tool. If we strive to engage our learners, we cannot see students as "vessels" to be filled with our knowledge. PowerPoint favors structure over substance, product or process, and efficiency over effectiveness. As Adams states, "True dialectic occurs in process, and thus can never be wholly anticipated in advance" (403). In defense of PowerPoint, however, I contend that even though it may be inherently flawed as a teaching aid, it is still just a tool. As educators, the onus is still on us to promote quality instruction using the tools at our disposal.

In the Lewis and Fabos article, I have always contended that IMing is a meaningful and often times complex practice. The section which resonated most with me was the implications of IM literacy on teaching. Sorry but I will post more later. . .

BASS: BRB

*BASS is currently offline and driving back to Austin from Houston*

TV good?

"The 'average' American will spend in excess of seven years watching television"

Geez. . .I love my TV, but it's a wonder what I could accomplish if I didn't have one. Most of my TV watching is sports releated. Occassionaly, I will watch a program on the History Channel or Discovery, but as far as network television goes I rarely watch. I used to watch much more network television when I was younger. This was the case because I lived in an area that did not have cable. We were able to receive three channels, and two of those where the same network from different cities! During my high school and college years my TV watching centered around Thursday nights on NBC. I watched The Cosby Show, Cheers, and Seinfeld. Seinfeld was the last show I watched religiously. Now, as I channel surf, I will occasionally watch an rerun of Scrubs or get sucked into an episode of "Flava of Love" (good grief), but mostly I'm watching some sporting event. Typically, if the Cowboys or the Aggies are on, I'm going to be watching.

I'm not sure if I can agree with Johnson premise that TV is making us better cognitive thinkers. I can agree that perhaps our visual spatial skills have improved, but I cannot condone more TV watching for the sake of TV watching. I understand his arguments that TV shows have gotten more complex. The plots are now multi layered; there is less "flashing arrows." But, my main bone of contention is that he parallels his premise on the supposed benefits of reading. So we find us smack dab in the middle of the literacy myth once again.

Watching television maybe intellectually stimulating if you are watching television critically. More to come.

Property

This weeks readings have been fascinating to say the least.

Lessig's chapter on intellectual property and ownership rights is very interesting. This is a topic I haven't really given much attention although after reading this chapter, I now realize how dangerous limiting access to creative property can be to our society.

On the surface the statement appears to be a "no-brainer" : intellectual property should be protected the same as actual property. What's interesting about this viewpoint is how fundamentally basic it sounds, but how damaging absolute authorial control of intellectual property can be. Controlling access to creative property to a select few, creates a vacuum for new ideas. Lessig argues that the establishment dictates how intellectual property will be distributed, and the establishment will do whatever in its power to maintain their power.

I also found it extremely interesting that as technology (namely the Internet) has developed the apparent need to protect one's creative work has increased. Lessig's four modalities highlight the balance that is needed to control user access, and throughout our history copyright laws, technological advances, society values, and marketing schemes have been used to control the access to creative property. The White Paper in 1995 illustrates this point as the "warriors" pushed for tighter regulation of intellectual property through changes in all four regulatory modalities. What's the problem with industry wanting to protect it's way of doing business? Lessig argues, "It is the duty of policy makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they
create, in response to the request of those hurt by changing technology, are changes that preserve the incentives and opportunities for innovation" (128). The danger is that the changes to intellectual property rights will circumvent the checks and balances in place and stifle new ideas and thus prevent progress.

Fixing the Text: Controlling the Chaos of Interpretations

"New ways of reading gave ways to new ways of writing texts and both gave rise to new ways of thinking about the world and about the mind" (143).

As I attempt to wrap my feeble brain around the concepts Olson provides for us, I am fascinated by the historical journey literacy has played in our development. As Olson contends, Western society evolved through the development of new ways of reading text. I now understand that in the course of human history writing like any technology was developed in order to solve a problem which in turn created new problems which necessitated new solutions.

The main problem writing creates is its inability to answer the question "What do you mean?" Because the body is removed from the utterance, the lexical system inadequately represents the "illocutionary force" intended by the writer. Thus, although writing solves a myriad of practical problems, it creates a multitude of new problems. The notion of how to control the chaos of numerous interpretations or as Olson refers to as "fixing the text" arises from the limitations of the writing system. The need for "experts" to dictate to the masses the "true" meaning of specific written utterances allowed for new ways of thinking, reading, and writing. In addition, I contend that those who controlled the interpretations controlled the masses.

I knew religion would find its way into the discussion sooner or later. God forbid we have people misinterpreting the Bible (note: intended irony, just in case you were unsure). Olson contends that our (Western Civilization's) reading history is really the history of reading the Bible. I liked how Olson explains the progression of interpreting the Bible and how it mirrors changes in societal ideology. Now in our post-modernistic understanding we recognize unlike Luther that to get at "what was meant" from "what was said" we have to ground our interpretations within a historical and cultural context. As Olson states, at different periods of history, people thought, spoke, and meant differently. It is oversimplification to assume that people viewed the world exactly the same way over time. Because writing created a need to read the world differently, new ways of thinking about the world developed. As Olson argues, "we no longer assume that the ancient writers used categories like our own" (155). Unfortunately, if I may add my "two cents" (this is MY Blog, right?), I doubt that when Olson uses "we", he means everybody. I would argue to the contrary that many still interpret the Bible much in the same way Luther did. . .but perhaps that is off the subject and needs to be the topic of a later discussion.

Deja Vu? Ahhh. . .the Literacy Myth (revisted)

I first encountered the notion of the "literacy myth" last semester. I have to be honest; I found it hard to accept that literacy does not increase cognitive ability. Isn't it obvious that those who read and write are move intellectually advanced then those who are not? Seemed fairly straightforward to me. Yet, although difficult as it was, I have rejected my prior notions on the superiority of literacy. As Olson suggests, I have lost my "naive belief in the transformative powers of simply learning to read and write" (3). Indeed, writing is a tool which in our modern society is clearly a functional necessity, but literacy does not make us a more intelligent society. I think by seeing literacy as a tool and not as something magical, I have been able to rethink my views on literacy.

As I reconstruct my literacy ideology, I am still perplexed by questions: So what? Why should literacy be removed from its pedestal? The answer, as Olson contends, is that our society (Western Ideology) needs to be aware of our arrogance because our beliefs are "a selective way of viewing the facts that not only justifies the advantages of the literate but also assigns the failings of society. . .to the illiterate" (2). How does our concept of literacy give us reason to condemn societies which are less literate. How do our ideologies continue to maintain the current hegemony?

In end this response with my first encounter with the literacy myth.

"Literacy, it is felt, freed some of humanity from a primitive state. . .literacy, it seems, is what makes us civilized" (Gee 26).
"Literacy, leads to logical, analytical, critical, and rational thinking, general and abstract uses of language. . ." (Gee 26).
I must admit I believe or still want to believe these statements to be true. I suppose, as Gee states, my own "literacy myth" is "foundational to how [I] make sense of reality." This reality leads me to believe that what I teach is important. Language Arts is, I have been known to say, facilitates and supports all other disciplines. I usually express to my young people "A Rationale for Learning to Read and Write" and "Why You Need to Learn To Speak Good" (that was intentional), very early in the school year. I have always believed that the more you read and write the better you read and write; I also promote active reading and process writing. I value this "essay-text literacy" because I guess I'm a "cog in the machine" perpetuating the values of the middle-class. After reading references to Scribner and Cole's research with the Vai (Gee 55), I believe I have to rethink my viewpoints (however difficult) on the role reading and writing play in the cognitive development of my students. I am interested in analyzing the influence (or the lack thereof) that schooling has on creative and critical thinking. I am concerned with this conclusion by Scribner and Cole: "School skills, beyond talk, are transitory, unless they are repeatedly practiced in people's daily lives (34). This compels me to question and revisit the skills I teach and activities I have my students do. Are my activities appropriate and useful? Do the skills I teach have a purpose beyond the classroom and a value by all of my students? The latter question is the tricky one. I fear I will always focus on promoting "success" within the dominate Discourse. Am I too indoctrinated to recognize where and when this may be "harmful" to my charges?

On Stage in the Classroom

I have taught for 11 years, and most of my experience in the classroom has been at the middle school level. I fully believe teaching is performance. I have often times equated my classroom instruction to being on stage. To keep my students actively engaged during my instruction, I utilize many acting skills: voice variations, dramatic pauses, wild-gesticulations, facial changes, quick thinking, improvisation techniques, movement. One especially useful skill is storytelling. I love to tell stories to my students. There is something magical to opening the space for a story. My children immediately engage when I signal that a story is forthcoming. Normally, I open the space for a story by saying "Ya know this reminds me of something that happened to me, but you guys don't really want to hear it, do you?" I usually receive a chrous of "yeses." I always bluff for a minute or two and then begin. I don't know if my students revert back to when they were young children, but I usually can keep the normally chaotic and habitually "antsy" 11 year-olds quiet and listening for a considerable length of time. I just have to make certain that my delievery is exciting. There is obviously power in the personal narrative. Why does a story compel us to block out the otherwise distracting impulses and relax and just listen?

To complete the story telling assignment this week, I told a story to my 6th period class. 6th period is my most challenging class. My students have already attended 5 other classes, one homeroom class, and lunch. When they finally come to me, their attention spans, already stunted due to a combination of hormones, PlayStation 3s , and high fructose corn syrup overdoses, are non-existent. Stories seem to calm them down. Last week, I told a story about a time I almost killed my sister (FYI: she's okay. . .no permanent damage . . .she even graduated from med school). For some reason, 6th graders are naturally drawn to stories about siblings and if violence is at all hinted in the plot, well that is an added bonus. I am always amazed at how a simple story can engage a group. When dealing with middle schoolers, content is important, but the delivery is essential. I believe that a bad story told well is much more effective than a good story told poorly.

Transcript Lesson

Introduction: The following is a transcript of a conversation recorded on Wednesday, January 24, 2007. I pulled in four students during our school's advisory period to hold a recorded conversation. Each of the participants are 6th graders, ages 11-12. They were briefed to hold a conversation about any topic, and they knew they were being taped. The names of the students have been changed.

Alex: Yesterday, I got into trouble. . .
Patricia: Why--
Nancy: Why?
Alex: Umm. . . .at first. . .I like. . .I was. .. I was like walkin’ to my room, right?
Nancy: uh huh. . .
Alex: . .. And my little sister. . . had. . .(Nancy: ooh at home. .) a cup of water. . .
Patricia: . . .I thought you were in school.
Nancy: yeah
Kelli: *laugh*
Alex: Naw, I got in trouble at (Kelli: walking at home?) home.
Patricia: shhh
Kelli: okay
Alex: okay. . .and like my sister had a cup of water in my room. .. and like she goes to bed early. . .cuz she's in elementary school. . .she wasted it and she blamed it on me. And my mom-
Patricia: She wasted the water and you got in trouble?
Alex: and my mom for some reason. . .doesn't like. . . wasting. . . anything
Kelli: yeah
Alex: I told her it didn't stain anything. . .and I was like. . .I don't know but I can take it back myself.

(undescernable sequence of turns)

Alex: My mom won't let me wash dishes
Patricia: Why?
Alex: Because she says I don't know how to wash them.
Patricia: I don't like washing dishes.
Nancy: yeah, it's boring--
Kelli: I get paid for washing dishes.
Patricia: An allowance?
Nancy: You do? I don't.

(undescernable sequence)

Patricia: What’s your worst nightmare?
Nancy: Uhhhhhh. . .
Kelli: You know . . .you have nightmares if you eat chocolate. . .eat chocolate before you go to bed?
Patricia: I eat chocolate before bed . . .I eat chocolate before bed. . .I eat a lot of chocolate. . .
Kelli: I mean chocolate. . .like
Patricia: like chocolate?
Kelli: like chocolate bar. ..
Patricia: oh
Alex: I remember when it. . .um. . .snowed. . .my cousin and I tired to . . .like make a fire. .
Kelli: You were outside?
Alex: We were outside. . .first I was cold. .. And then. . .my whole body was hot. . .
Patricia: yeah it was cold. . .I'm glad my mom had extra hot chocolate.. . and I was . . .I was running. . .I was running. . .I was on the road. . . .and I then I fell. . .and then I hurt my butt. . . and then it got wet. . .and cold.
Nancy: In the snow?
Patricia: No . . .in the ice.
Nancy: Oh. . .Okay
Patricia: You remember there was. . .you know those icicles that were on top of the houses. . .
Kelli: yeah. . .
Patricia: I was going like that . . .and they fell on my hand.
Kelli: yeah. . .we were um outback uh I think it was onnnnn. . .it was the day before we came back. . .we were taking umm. . .I have a soccer ball. . .out in my backyard. . .and we were taking it and we were throwing the soccer up there and hitting icicles down. (long pause)
Nancy: yeah. . .thuh. .. thuh. . .we have a cable and the ice like froze. . .
Kelli: Uh hum
Nancy: And we were coming to school my mom, me and my sister. . . and then in the car in the roof one one of them like got and like fell and got on the roof and we just jumped because we didn't know it was going to fall. . .from the cable
Alex: (undescernable utterance)
Kelli: They were there telling people watch out for ice that was flying of the top of the. . . umm. . .roofs of the cars because they were an inch thick
Alex: (undescernable utterance but he does take control of conversation)

Reflections: My initial observation was darn, my fingers sure hurt having to hit play, stop, rewind, stop, play, stop over and over again. . .transcribing is not easy! Another observation is that one should always test the recording device to determine if it is functioning properly. I used a library-issued circa 1988 recorder that may not have been used since Poison recorded their last hit album. Failing to test the recorder's range, there were several instances where Alex's utterances were undescernable which really makes transcribing frustrating (and dangerous) when you have to hold a 5 pound recorder to your ear!

In hindsight, I think that I should have found three to four friends to be the sample group because I do not think the conversation was natural. It sounds disjointed and forced. However, there were some interesting observations from the transcribing process. Writing the spoken word is time consuming, meticulous work. The complexity of the speech act is mind numbing. It is simply impossible to transcribe every detail during a conversation. So much is happening during that moment in time; it really is fascinating to analyze how naturally we speak and how utterly (pun not intended) complex and layered the act actually is. I found it especially challanging to express the inflections and the word stresses utilized by my young subjects. I also found it very difficult to transcribe overlaping utterances.

Because I teach theater, I am interested in subtext. When I transcribed this conversation, I really liked analyzing the intent of the participants more then the words they were using. I also liked to look at the pauses and other non-verbal markers. A final observation I had was I really need to have a discussion with my students about using the filler 'like' when speaking. . .ugh. . .that drives me crazy.